Elizabeth M. Johnson

The gossip article in the December issue of Psychology Today is frighteningly off-target. Columnist Jennifer Drapkin’s article, The Dirty Little Secret of Gossip, contends that gossip is one of “life’s most undervalued-and instructive-pleasures”. Huh. That’s one way to look at ‘death by language’ as Roland Barthes describes gossip. Gossip consists of words that we wouldn’t share about someone else to their face. If a compliment can be detected in gossip, it is usually a backhanded one, a jab at someone in an indirect way.

Here’s a brief blow-by-blow of some of Drapkin’s contentions:

· ‘Gossip builds fame and legends’, Liz Smith tells us. While I would agree that gossip does contribute to fame, I cannot agree that it builds legends. People and action build legends. Words alone cannot make someone a legend.
· ‘News of others travails actually helps us cope with our own difficult situations’. While other people’s difficulties might empower us to make changes within out own lives, I cannot conceive that this factor exists independently i.e. if we didn’t hear of other problems, we wouldn’t be able to cope with our own situation.
· ‘Turning a deaf ear to gossip is a shortcut to alienation.” This is completely false. Ignoring gossip certainly may keep you out of the nasty social climbing loop of your life but women who value their Authentic Self certainly will never be truly alienated by their choice to ignore language that deliberately damages others.
· ‘Gossip is pleasurable because it is necessary for survival’. Gossip is not necessary for survival in life; it’s a nasty habit that serves to hurt others. Labelling gossip necessary for survival is like saying sex is pleasurable because it is necessary for survival. Sex is great but we don’t need it as we do food, water and air to survive. How could gossip be necessary to our survival?
· ‘Some people deserve bad reputations’ so gossip is good for that reason. Ah-ha, we hit on it here. Finally an admission that gossip can damage and harm. Gossip can cause irrevocable damage. Who, even someone who cheated on his wife or was in jail briefly or stole money from their employer, deserves a bad reputation for life? So, from Drapkin’s assertion that some people deserve bad reputations, we can assume that no one should ever deserve to be in a relationship again, be released from jail or receive a 2nd chance. Kind of harsh, isn’t it?
· Gossip is educational, serving as ‘intergenerational glue’ for parents and daughters to talk about whether or not oral sex was actually infidelity. Suddenly the whole country ‘feels closer’ as they discuss the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, Jessica Coen Editor of Gawker.com, tells Drapkin. How disappointing that Coen feels discussing other people’s personal lives is a way that she and her family can grow closer. It’s always safer and much more comfortable discussing other people’s lives than our own. Instead of judging other’s actions (i.e.gossiping), perhaps we could take a good look at our own as a point of authentic discussion and closeness.

Drapkin would have served Psychology Today readers better by interviewing some experts who have actually spent time and research looking at language instead of focusing on the ‘glamorous’ aspects of gossip. Phyllis Chesler, author of Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, would have served as a terrific resource to testify to the ruinous nature of gossip and the damage that mere words can inflict on someone else. Seth Godin would also have been a terrific resource to speak to how words create buzz and information travels through sneezers. Drapkin’s glamorization of gossip gives the reader a false impression of the real intention of gossip. Make no mistake, gossip is intended to harm not to help or educate. That is how we know that it is gossip. Other thoughts?